Inspired by the “throw everything at the wall” approach utilized in climate liability cases filed by municipalities across the country, the Rockefeller-funded Conservation Law Foundation is now changing its tactics in its lawsuit against Shell Oil Co.
Chief Judge William Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled yesterday to allow CLF to make changes to their complaint – including changing both the parties they are suing and the grounds for the lawsuit. Specifically, the organization removed Royal Dutch Shell PLC as a defendant and added Triton Terminaling LLC and Equilon Enterprises LLC to the list. They also now claim that the defendants have failed to adequately meet requirements in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
CLF’s major amendments not only highlight the weaknesses in their complaint, it also serves to delay the resolution of a case allegedly critiquing delayed action to address rapid response to climate change. Shell called out these delays tactics in their opposing motion, explaining:
“This will result in an additional round of briefing on CLF’s failure to provide notice, followed by a 60-day delay while the statutory notice period elapses, and then re-filing of a motion for leave to amend – all at unnecessary time and expense and further disruption of the orderly and efficient schedule stipulated to by the parties (and now disregarded by CLF).”
CLF is attacking Shell, despite their work in the region.
The environmental activist group claims that Shell has failed to make its terminals resilient to the threats of climate change. However, they decline to mention that the company recently partnered with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to provide $28.9 million in new grants for the restoration of coastal marshes, wetlands, and rivers to help “minimize the impacts of storms, rising sea levels and other extreme events on nearby communities.” The total conservation impact is expected to exceed $67.2 million.
Even Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the most vocal attackers of the energy industry, praised the company’s efforts:
“These are big organizations and they sometimes do good things and those should be celebrated.”
CLF’s true motives.
CLF claims that their case against Shell is the “is the latest in [their] ongoing fight to hold large polluters accountable.” This messaging directly mirrors that of other activist groups like 350.org, seeking to “delegitimize” energy companies for continuing to fuel our everyday lives. Not coincidentally, CLF and 350.org both attended a secret 2016 strategy meeting at Rockefeller headquarters that sought to synchronize messaging, complete with “a war room, joint social media, and coordinated organizing,” to attack these companies.
CLF’s controversial approach to energy issues was also on display last year, when it defended the importation of Russian natural gas into New England. CLF has been a fierce opponent of much-needed natural gas pipeline capacity in the region, despite its environmental and economic benefits.
